get_related_companies

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that related companies are retrieved, but without stating the response format (e.g., a list), possible empty results, or any additional side effects. This is minimal and leaves an agent uncertain about what to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of a single efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key resource. It is appropriately concise and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The absence of an output schema and annotations means the description must explain the expected output and any nuances. It does not mention whether the result is a list, the potential size, or any additional context like whether the tool returns only Russian companies. For a tool with a single parameter, it is still incomplete for an agent to call it correctly and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already documents the 'inn' parameter with a clear description ('INN of the company'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description essentially repeats this by saying 'by INN' without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action (get) and resource (affiliated/related companies) with a required identifier (INN). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like search_company or get_company_details, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The phrasing is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states the operation without contextual placement. An agent targeting a specific company would lack direction on choosing this over get_company_details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.